B and C. At 2C, 2-4, probably 0.01-1m sea level rise, at 3C, 3-5, probably 0.1-5m sea level rise, at 5C, 4-8, probably 1-10m sea level rise, at 10C, 5-9, probably 2-50m sea level rise. Other effects would include a significant reduction in food production as deserts expand.
D. At 2C, 5-8 for polar and alpine species, 2-5 for other species. at 3C, 7-9 for polar and alpine species, 3-6 for other species, at 5C, 8-10 for polar and alpine species, 5-8 for other species, at 10C 10 for polar and alpine species, 6-10 for other species
edit
Ian does have a point. On a scale of 1-10, where where one end is beneficial, 1 would usually mean "very beneficial," and 5 would be neutral.
I'm not a climate scientist but I can say with great confidence there will be ZERO man-made Global Warming over the next century --- because AGW theory has been proven bogus. AGW as defined today simply does not and cannot happen.
However, there could be some natural warming or natural cooling over the next century. A hundred years is a pretty good span of time, nowhere in the proxy record do we see temperature remaining constant for such a long period. But as far as which way it will go -- nobody knows, and anybody that says they know, is full of it.
-----------------------
You should change your cyntax from "Since we do not fully understand climate" to "Since I do not fully understand climate"...
I will give you an E answer. "E. in the next century temperature increase/decrease (you can't predict as you don't have enough evidence yet) will be less than a single degree, or even less than 0.0001 of single degree. Not even noted by any living organism on this planet."
Science knows enough about the climate to tell you that it is not going to change in the length of single century. If you found a scientist who tells you otherwise, you bravely can spit in his face and call him a charlatan, or Al Gore (which is one and the same).
While denier continue to play the It's not happening card the fact is we are already seeing the first stages just as they where predicted a couple of decades ago. Some like Arctic sea ice decline are actually happening faster than was estimated back then.
Others like sea level rise and glacial loss are certainly happening.
As far as temperature goes look at the data (and denier claims) they claim we are cooling (and have been for 17 years) yet the IPCC estimate puts warming at an average of ~0.1c per decade, what was the rise from the previous warmest decade (1990's) to the current warmest decade (2000's) 0.2c, is this really what denier are trying to call cooling or a pause.
The IPCC's own site
"Analysis of global temperature trends since 1958 in the low to mid-troposphere from balloons shows a warming of about +0.1°C/decade, which is similar to the average rate of warming at the surface. Since the early 1960s no significant trends have been detected for the global mean temperature in the uppermost troposphere."
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/0...
And the data on decadal temperatures
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
We have by most scientific estimates passed the point where we could have held temperature rise to 2c the IPCC figure of 0.1c is based on measurements taken from the 1950's on-wards early in that century the rate of rise was certainly slower and as we continue through this century it is pretty certain the decadal figure will continue to grow as the figure 0.2c as the rise between the previous two decades seems to bare out.
If we continued at just 0.2c to the end of the century that is a figure of 2c (or 3c overall) in temperature rise, that is all that is needed for the base estimates of the IPCC i.e. 1m of sea level rise, I think 8 is beyond most estimates but 4-6 isn't and then we are talking about more like 2m of rise. The effect of such a rise on the globe is going to be vast, and a long term economic problem, I wonder (if we can still find any) if deniers will remember they tried to say this was an economic issue, they will have been right but not in the way they expected. But I imagine by then it will be hard to find anyone who will even admit they wherever a denier of AGW.
Global sea level is a quite good (short term) indicator of what global temperature is doing yet for all denier claim of cooling and 17 years of pause, sea level has simply continued to rise.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
Deniers have even tried to use sea level a few times in recent when there where short term drops in sea level, but these pass and then they play the "you can't trust that data" card. Which is their bulk answer to all data they have no counter to.
I originally - and, in fact still - think that there is no clear answer to the question because there is no clear answer to any question about the effects of anything over the next century.
However, it did make clear the reason Deniers are called Deniers, liars, and stupid.
There is greater certainty that AGW will have a significant global impact than there is in calculating the likelihood of a collision with Near Earth Objects. In fact, the certainty is 100% because we have empirical evidence that AGW is already impacting climate. But, by anlaogy, if NASA was predicting a 98% probablility of impact with a NEO, the Denier responses would fall into the same few categories:
1) There is no NEO (Denier equivalent: NASA is lying - again);
2) There is a NEO, but it is microscopic in size and/or the likihood of its colliding with us is not statistically significant (Denier equivalent: We may know nothing about science, but we know about science than scientists);
3) Since we cannot know the precise consequences of an impact, we should not spend any money or take any action to prevent an impact or to mitigate any possible consequences of an impact (Denier equivalent: You can't fool us; we know this whole "object-thing" is a socialist conspiracy to tax the rich and feed the lazy).
Guessing is never a good idea , especially when your guesses can affect everyone on Earth and the global economy.
There's a 99.9% or greater chance of being wrong and even if you struck lucky, policy by accident is also not a good thing.
Start from the premise which children are taught that 'man cannot control the weather' and try and work from that point instead of the wild premise that that man is dooming the Earth.
However to humour you I will guess
A) From -5 to +5 degrees
B) No physical effect but many political repercussions if this agw cult isn't reigned in.
C) Same as answer B
D) Zero to negligible
The above are the only sane guesses..
LOL... only an alarmist could make a scale where 2 is neutral on a scale of 1 to 10.
@Chem... Rrrrrrrriiiiiiht. 1 is "slightly good" 2 is "neutral" and after that it just gets worse.
What if I believe that AGW has been VERY beneficial to humanity? Over a period of any supposed man made global warming worldwide crop production has INCREASED. Death from natural disasters has DECREASED.
An alarmist having a biased scale that favours AGW being "Bahhhh... ahh... ahh... ahhh... ahhhd". I'm shocked.
Dookster has defined the purpose of the IP CC is to "exactly address these issues". This where his biased scientific analysis has set him "informationally adrift" when it comes to defining climate issues. The main purpose of the IP CC was to determine if the additional CO2 was causing the planet to warm catastrophically and to direct us towards a scientifically viable solution.
26 years of the IP CC's research and analysis has shown that the additional 40% of atmospheric CO2 is "not" catastrophic!!!
Additionally :
I just noticed another totally ridiculous statement by "The Dookster" : " ... How urgent is it? We don’t know, and therefore it’s urgent. Come again? Well, if you don’t know whether your house is on fire, but there’s a good chance it might be, that’s urgent. ... "
26 years of Global Research and they still don't know? If he doesn't know his house is on fire and there's a good chance it might be, then it's urgent? How stupid of a statement is that? Usually one can tell if their house is on fire by seeing smoke or having specific evidence to support such a catastrophic happening. You don't keep calling the fire department every time you think there "might be" a fire.
Chicken Little at its best!!!
All 4 season's have returned to normal naturally. Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012. Mike
A About 0.5C 1
B Slightly beneficial. more food crops and a greener world 1
C That entirely depends on how stupid or intelligent we are. 2
D Good a slightly warmer wetter world with more plants will provide more habitat for creatures 1
Since we do not fully understand climate, and can't know for certain what future greenhouse gas emissions will be, we can't know for sure what's going to happen with AGW. But, we can make some good guesses. And, obviously, it makes sense to expend most of our efforts on preparing for or dealing with high-probability scenarios, rather than very low probability ones.
I realize this is not exactly a panel of scientific experts. But, I still think it might be reasonable to ask for everyone's guesses on what will happen with AGW over the next century or so. For each category, please give the range that you think covers 95% probability--that is, the range such that you think there's a 5% chance or less that it will be either above or below that range. If I ask for a scale, I mean a 1-10 scale, where 1 is "at least somewhat beneficial", 2 is "neutral", and 10 is something like "total extinction"
A. Actual temperature rise, in degrees
B. Probable effect on human society, scale and description
C. Probable effect on humanity as a whole, scale and description
D. Probable effect on other life forms on Earth (collectively), scale and description
The IPCC (a main purpose of which is to address exactly these issues), in its thousands of pages reports, reflecting the work of thousands of scientists, deals extensively with essentially this question.
I don't have time to distill short answers to your question from those reports, but:
a) I don't think you will find a better authority re such future projections.
b) All such projections can amount to is essentially well-informed guesses, and that is why they are appropriately provided as very broad ranges; the projected long term average global temperature increase itself (your A, and on which your B,C, and D, of course vitally depend) is, for example, usually presented as a range of plus or minus something like 30 or 40%!!
The KEY thing to bear in mind, is that the UNCERTAINTY of the future climate is a BIG RISK, and that that uncertainty is a powerful REASON FOR ACTION. Most of the vast worldwide insurance industry (which last time I looked was not run by environmentalists, socialists, Al Gore, Barack Obama, or supernatural Babylonian Reptilians) had as its raison d'etre to help people and the world cope with all sorts of such future risks.
This was also addressed quite directly by the leading historian of climate change science, Spencer Weart, in an article written eight years ago and still relevant today. I have provided the link to it "a few" :) ! times already. It will take you less time to read than it would take to develop any credible answer to this question any other way. I suggest you look at it: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
Here is essential conclusion of it:
"What we need is a change in the climate–of opinion. Americans in particular ought to make their nation not the world’s laggard, but its leader in addressing the problem. We should be challenging other nations to match us in staving off global warming. Many tools are already at hand and many more can be developed. If the climate does turn bad, we may have to use most of them. The necessary large change in public attitudes is certainly possible, for leaders of many corporations, state and local governments, and others have noticed the danger and are starting to take action on their own.
How urgent is it? We don’t know, and therefore it’s urgent. Come again? Well, if you don’t know whether your house is on fire, but there’s a good chance it might be, that’s urgent. Even if there’s only a small chance that it will ever catch fire, you’re willing to spend a significant fraction of your wealth on insurance. For climate, one mechanism that suggests we are at urgent risk can be explained to almost anyone able to grasp elementary physics. As cold regions grow warmer, the bright snow and ice cover that reflect sunlight back into space are retreating earlier in the spring, exposing dark soil and open water, which absorb sunlight, which leads to further warming, and so on. That’s why global warming is showing up first in the Arctic: an effect scientists have predicted since the 19th century. You might also mention a second risk, recognized more recently. The world’s vast expanses of frozen tundra store fossil carbon, and as the permafrost melts, methane bubbles out; methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and leads to further warming. Geoscientists have identified several other mechanisms that might possibly push the climate abruptly into a dangerous state. Possibly we are approaching a tipping point.
We can probably arrest the process before it becomes irreversible. The cost may be no worse than we spend on other kinds of insurance. But not if we keep putting off effective action...We all have a responsibility to engage...on what might be the most crucial issue of our times. Just possibly might. Actually, more likely than not."
Edit: Wikipedia says the purpose of IPCC is to "cover t scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
Zippie (claiming that IPCC was set up "to determine if the additional CO2 was causing the planet to warm catastrophically") goes out of his way to mention me as part of espousing a view contrary to that of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org Zippie's word "catastrophically" appears nowhere on that long Wikipedia page. Which do you suppose is better informed?
You have a computer. Use it to learn.
About as much as peeing in the ocean will raise the ocean's level.
